Apolitical Faith? Objections to Christian Political Engagement, Part 1
Meet the apolitical right
“I’m apolitical,” a pastor friend told me not long ago. His tone and body language communicated disdain for the whole business of candidates, legislation and public policy. The response I did not verbalize was, “Great. Another one.”
This apolitical attitude seems to be on the rise among theologically serious (especially gospel-serious) evangelicals and fundamentalists. An underlying conviction seems to be that the Bible and Christian living have nothing at all to do with any political agenda. Ministry and true discipleship are only hindered by attention to political matters. To the most passionate apoliticals, the correct course is not a matter of balance (moderation in political engagement) or discipline (proper limits on the kind of political engagement). It’s a matter of purity: faith and ministry should not mix themselves in any way with the poison of politics.1
In practice, this means churches should avoid taking positions on matters perceived to be “political issues,” and pastors and teachers should refrain from teaching and preaching on political topics. Above all, believers should not express their political views in any way that might alienate someone with whom they hope to have a gospel witness. Having a mild interest in politics and casting a vote on election day is okay, but going beyond that is heading down the wrong road.
A variety of factors motivate the apoliticals I’ve interacted with. Some simply have temperaments that are deeply averse to the conflict and strife of politics. Others have absorbed some of the thinking of the evangelical left (such as the “Red Letter Christian” fondness for pitting the supposed teaching of Jesus against the rest of Scripture rather than interpreting Jesus in light of the rest of Scripture).2 In almost every case, constituents of the apolitical right see the Moral Majority efforts of the 1980s as a travesty and decry anything today that seems similar.
Whatever the primary motivation, apoliticals offer specific objections to all but the most mild and private forms of political engagement.
1. Changes in public policy don’t save souls.
This objection has the advantage of being absolutely true. Electing a wise leader rather than a foolish one, or adopting a helpful policy rather than a damaging one, brings no one to faith in the gospel. Since the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), only the proclamation of that message has a direct impact on the greatest need of all societies everywhere.
The objection sometimes takes the form of an old and often repeated disjunction: “We should be trying to win the lost, not trying to elect politicians and pass laws!” This way of thinking seems to arise from the best of motives. But this objection fails to account for several realities and falls short of justifying total disengagement from politics.
First, the either-or is a false one. If we have time to read books and also reach the lost, work careers and also to reach the lost, even watch sports on TV or play golf yet also reach the lost, surely we can be politically informed, think through the issues, and maybe put a sign in the yard or take a little time to show up at an event or two once in a while—yet still reach the lost. There is nothing about being politically engaged that prevents us from also spreading the gospel.
Second, many activities we value do not save souls. Whether it’s manufacturing a better window, developing a safer medical procedure or designing a better database, we see value in what helps people and earns an honest living. But none of these things declare the saving message of the gospel to the ears of sinners.
Acts of charity are no different. A sinner without Christ is just as Christless after we feed him, clothe him, bind up his wounds or free him from slavery. Yet Jesus gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry, caused the disabled to walk and speak and hear. Jesus did not have to use these particular signs to authenticate His prophetic office. He could have called fire down from heaven on the Pharisees, turned the Sea of Galilee to blood or caused the sun to stand still for several hours. Instead, He chose signs that helped people. Apparently—other things being equal—it’s okay to do things that just make life better for people.3
And wise policy does make life better for people—usually in large numbers and often for long periods of time. Appointing rulers who are just blesses all under their rule.
Like a roaring lion and a charging bear Is a wicked ruler over poor people. (NKJV, Prov. 28:15)
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. (Prov. 29:2)
2. Capitalism and other political philosophies have nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
What motivates individuals when they make economic decisions? What motivates people when they act collectively as a society? How should individuals and societies relate to possessions? Where does the true value of goods and services lie? Where do crime and poverty come from? What is the purpose of civil government? Are newer ideas about these matters necessarily better than older ideas? Will human beings ever establish the ideal society? What would such a society be like?
Answers to these questions have an inherently religious character. They draw on beliefs about ultimate questions: Who are we? How did we get here? Why do we exist? The Bible speaks clearly to these ultimate questions but also has much to say about the nature of value, property, crime and poverty; human motivations; what government is supposed to do; and the limits to what human beings can achieve.
So the Bible speaks to many of the concerns that are the focus of political philosophies. Whether we like it or not, points of theology and points of political philosophy are intertwined.
The question is not whether capitalism has anything to do with Christian faith, but rather, what political and economic philosophies best align with what Scripture reveals in these areas? Properly understood—and compared with real world alternative philosophies4—free-market conservatism emerges as a view of human nature, society, labor and property that agrees with the teaching of the Bible5 (problems of greed, materialism, dishonesty, etc. are problems of the human condition that permeate all economic systems).
But this objection has an even simpler answer. Is there any area of ethics that should have no importance in the eyes of Christians? Why should we exclude social ethics from our attention and teaching?
3. If Christians believe in the separation of church and state, they ought to keep away from politics.
Several Christian traditions have long upheld various forms of separation between church and state. Baptists uphold the principle as one of their distinctives. But what sort of “separation” do we have in mind?
I’ve argued that there can be no ideological separation between religion and political philosophy. Since all politicians make policy decisions based on their belief systems (however random those systems may be), their beliefs about the ultimate questions inevitably shape their views and actions. Trying to separate religion and politics is like trying to separate math and chemistry—both unwise and impossible.
But institutional power is something else. For many reasons, the decision-making power of churches or denominations and the decision making power of governmental institutions ought to avoid meddling with each other as much as possible. Drawing the lines so that we maintain a good separation is complicated business, but the ideal of separate spheres of power is a wise one.
However, proper separation of church and state does not require that churches and Christian leaders refrain from pointing out how biblical principles apply to matters thought to be “political,” nor does it prohibit believers from being involved in the process of selecting leaders and shaping public policy.
4. There are so many wrong-headed and badly behaved “Christian” conservatives.
It’s true that many political conservatives who claim to be Christian (or just engage in a lot of God-talk) are not good examples of what a Christian should be. Many have not thought through how to relate their faith to their governing roles. Some seem to have a knack for evoking the Bible at all the wrong times.
But it’s important not to overlook the difference between a bad idea and poor implementation of a good one. The solution to policy makers handling their faith badly (or Christians handling their policy making badly) is to get it right, not to toss out the whole idea.
And let’s remember that bad Christian examples are not unique to the right. John Edwards claimed to be a Christian;6 so does Jesse Jackson. Undoubtedly, plenty of flawed human beings can be found among the leaders of the “Christian left.”7
Some conclusions
Several objections remain—some of them quite weighty. Doesn’t capitalism encourage materialism, greed, bigger and bigger corporations and abuse of God-given resources? Doesn’t pursuing morality through public policy just make us look hateful and self-righteous as Christians and harm our gospel witness? Isn’t the church in great danger of being seduced into activities that distract from its primary mission? These and other concerns are the focus of the next article.
(A related article here at SI: Right is Right)
Notes
1 Here, a boundary of the group gets fuzzy. Some who claim to be apolitical are willing to make political statements—even from the pulpit—if the statements are critical of ideas associated with the religious right or conservatism.
2 See http://www.sojo.net/?action=about_us.redletterchristians (accessed, 10/8/2010).
3 An irony here is that some of the most vocal of the apolitical right are quick to promote acts of charity as “incarnational ministry.” Somehow, feeding a hungry sinner is incarnational but helping pass a law that enables a thousand hungry sinners to get jobs is not.
4 Jay W. Richards is brilliant on this point in Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperCollins, 2009, pp. 9-32).
5 Adam Smith, widely viewed as the father of capitalism, was a deist and strongly influenced by Stoic philosophers. However, he believed strongly in God’s moral ordering of the world and in God’s providential ordering of society in such a way that self-interest frequently leads to the benefit of others (and ultimately all) in free markets. He refers to this often in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (e.g., III.I.106).
6 “John Edwards: ‘My Faith Came Roaring Back.’” http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2007/03/John-Edwards-My-Faith-Came-Roaring-Back.aspx#extndVer (accessed 10/12/2010).
7 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left#Notable_Christian_leftists (accessed 10/12/2010).
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 46 views
An underlying conviction seems to be that the Bible and Christian living have nothing at all to do with any political agenda. Ministry and true discipleship are only hindered by attention to political matters. To the most passionate apoliticals, the correct course is not a matter of balance (moderation in political engagement) or discipline (proper limits on the kind of political engagement). It’s a matter of purity: faith and ministry should not mix themselves in any way with the poison of politics.
For me, I’m not sure if this applies, but more so this attitude:
I haven’t been able to come up with a sufficient answer from Scripture that helps me (spiritually) healthily balance submission with political activity. Romans 13, I Tim. 2, Titus 3, I Peter 2, and then the verses in the OT which talks about Who sets up governing authorities, Who tears them down, Who judges in the end and I’m only left with submit, submit, submit. I use the “render Cesar” passage to vote, but even that’s losing its lackluster, at times.
The only repeated arguments I hear about why Christians should be involved politically are from outside sources, such as: Wouldn’t our country go to pots if we (who are superior-ly moral—said tongue-in-cheek (that could be an emoticon suggestion :)) didn’t vote “right.” I also think that a lot of it is built on the fact that many, well-meaning Christians believe that America is “God’s country.” I shutter.
So, while we’ve been truly blessed, I can’t find much, if anything, in Scripture that calls me to get attend a local government meeting, use precious time handing out political flyers, or fly to D.C. to sit out on the nicely kept lawn. :)
If anyone has ideas, from Scripture, on how this is done, I’m willing to hear them. Thanks! Kim :)
I thought Jesus did this to correlate physical healing with spiritual healing, not so much as a charity. Am I reading too much into this?
Thanks!
I haven’t been able to come up with a sufficient answer from Scripture that helps me (spiritually) healthily balance submission with political activity. Romans 13, I Tim. 2, Titus 3, I Peter 2, and then the verses in the OT which talks about Who sets up governing authorities, Who tears them down, Who judges in the end and I’m only left with submit, submit, submit. I use the “render Cesar” passage to vote, but even that’s losing its lackluster, at times.I’m not sure I’m entirely clear on the first part of the question, but sometimes the thinking is “God is control of who reigns, so what does that have to do with us?” The problem with that is that God uses secondary causes/means in the working of all things according to His will. (Even the Westminster Confession is very clear on this.) So it doesn’t follow that if God is in control of who reigns, we do not choose who reigns. It’s both His control and our actions/choices.
As for a rationale for involvement, I probably should have linked to this somewhere in the article:
http://sharperiron.org/2009/02/27/should-we-abandon-politics
One of the arguments there is that our present form of government is such that citizens are intentionally tasked with a role in governing. So we are are really all sort of part time “kings,” to use a biblical term. “Authorities” would be a better fit. We are expected to take part in choosing who will rule and to influence the decisions he makes. So the question there isn’t really “Should I participate?” but rather “As a citizen ruler, what will be the quality of my participation?”
About Jesus’ miracles, it’s true they had multiple purposes. The acts of healing fulfilled OT messianic prophecies. But why were these prophecies made? Because this was how Jesus was going to behave. So I do think at times (this is often not evident in the text) He is making a spiritual point, but overall it’s about a) authenticating prophetic claims and b) demonstrating the healing character of the Messiah.
But why does the Messiah have a healing character? As far as we can tell, not everybody who is healed comes to faith afterwards (most seem to have come to faith before the healing). I think the point of the Messiah being a healer is rooted in the fact that it’s just good to help people. He is the consummate Helper and surpasses all others in loving your neighbor as yourself.
I think that point is mostly not controversial. But those on the apolitical right and the evangelical left have both shown a tendency to apply the example of Jesus very selectively: individual acts of compassion, not large, legislative acts of compassion.. or in the case of the left, individual acts of compassion plus large legislative acts of compassion as understood by liberalism—that is, the example of Jesus is applied to what government does only when it is acting on liberal political philosophy. If it acts based on conservative political philosophy, it’s assumed to be acting contrary to the interests and well being of citizens. And assumed is the right word. But the assumptions are incorrect.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To clear up confusion re: I’m not sure I’m entirely clear on the first part of the question, My question was more about this: So, while we’ve been truly blessed, I can’t find much, if anything, in Scripture that calls me to get attend a local government meeting, use precious time handing out political flyers, or fly to D.C. to sit out on the nicely kept lawn.
If anyone has ideas, from Scripture, on how this is done, I’m willing to hear them.
Are there passages that directly calling me, as a disciple of Christ, into government participation beyond participating as someone who continually submits (re: previous passage references)?
Thanks! :)
I know some of their advisors, and know the candidate is a believer. This person has an uphill battle in spite of the current political climate because he is taking on a very entrenched (25+ years) incumbent in a traditionally “liberal” rural district. The candidate’s boundless energy and enthusiasm and hard work have stood out. What has stood out to me is what they have felt as though they need to do to get elected. While getting endorsements from the pro-life and conservative Christian causes, as expected, the candidate has tried to aim their message at voters from both parties. There are things within this that have made me personally uncomfortable as a Christian.
So, in this case, the candidate dances in a Native American powwow (and there it’s not just the dancing, but the knowing whom they dance for that’s objectionable) or hosts multiple events that emphasize alcohol use and the candidate getting an endorsement from the Tavern League. How am I as a Christian supposed to feel about that?
Now I have moved out of the district so I don’t have to make the choice to vote for them or not, but I was helping the campaign when I was there. There is a sense in which I feel that if that is what it takes to get elected, I can do without it. Still, the candidate is better than the alternative.
On the other hand, many people have weighty non-theologial reasons for disengaging from politics. As Steve said, it’s messy. Also, most people - pastors included - are not well-informed about the issues, and would require a serious change of lifestyle to become informed. This causes them to feel underqualified, as if casting a vote is the political equivalent of placing a bet on a roulette wheel. Disappointment and disillusionment with past candidates mutes the enthusiasm of many. Surely there are more reasons.
Pastors especially are in a difficult position. They aren’t the aristocratic leaders they were in pre-Revolutionary War New England. There are specific limitations in what they can say if they want their churches to remain tax-exempt. There are real threats, such as polarizing a congregation or appearing to outsiders as a political club in Christian form (think D. James Kennedy). So, many pastors have private political opinions and vote accordingly, but choose to refrain from most political commentary in the pulpit.
I was intrigued by a comment Nancy Piercey made in her book Total Truth. She said that when American evangelicals have sought to influence the public realm, they have done so almost exclusively through politics. They have largely ignored creating culture - art, literature, community - in favor of political victory. This is a tragic failure for Christianity, because whereas politics is based on force and competition, culture is created through invitation and persuasion. Cultural mores shape people’s minds and hearts deeper than legislative prohibitions. Tim Keller is one pastor who understands the value of creating culture in a given locality, and we would do well to imitate him in that regard.
In conclusion, I agree that Christians need not view political involvement and the gospel as conflicting interests. I deny that there is a viable apolitical theology; it didn’t work for the Anabaptists and it won’t work now.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[skjnoble] Are there passages that directly calling me, as a disciple of Christ, into government participation beyond participating as someone who continually submits (re: previous passage references)?I understand your question, now. No, there aren’t any passages that speak directly to that any more than there are passages that speak directly to why someone should be a dentist rather than an architect. But also no less. My aim is mainly to show that a) we all have a responsibility to be at least “engaged” in what’s going on and b) it is legitimate for some to be actively involved in the ways you’ve mentioned, and for some to hold office.
But I’m not suggesting that attending rallies is for everybody. I don’t attend them myself. But I disagree with those who want to denigrate this kind of activity across the board.
[Steve Newman] There are things within this that have made me personally uncomfortable as a Christian.Yes, it is messy. It must also have been very messy for Daniel to be head over the Magi in Babylon. I think the case you’ve mentioned highlights why it’s so important not to be binary in our thinking about political issues. There will never be a perfect candidate. And if there was one, well he’d be hated by many as well. I have alot of respect for those who—with the right motives—even make the attempt.
So, in this case, the candidate dances in a Native American powwow (and there it’s not just the dancing, but the knowing whom they dance for that’s objectionable) or hosts multiple events that emphasize alcohol use and the candidate getting an endorsement from the Tavern League. How am I as a Christian supposed to feel about that?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Charlie] Pastors especially are in a difficult position. They aren’t the aristocratic leaders they were in pre-Revolutionary War New England. There are specific limitations in what they can say if they want their churches to remain tax-exempt. There are real threats, such as polarizing a congregation or appearing to outsiders as a political club in Christian form (think D. James Kennedy). So, many pastors have private political opinions and vote accordingly, but choose to refrain from most political commentary in the pulpit.These are great observations (and I love the term “gospel buzz movement” as well), and they create an opportunity for me to make some distinctions I think are important.
I was intrigued by a comment Nancy Piercey made in her book Total Truth. She said that when American evangelicals have sought to influence the public realm, they have done so almost exclusively through politics. They have largely ignored creating culture - art, literature, community - in favor of political victory.
When I talk about being “engaged,” I mean to defend those who get overtly involved in the political process, but primarily I mean being engaged at the ideas level. I think many who hate the theologically messy messages that come out of Moral Majority (and now we’ve got Glen Beck), etc., are swinging to an extreme that includes thinking there is nothing at all to say about these topics in the preaching and teaching ministry of the church.
But this is far from true. I think the most important work is on the ideas level, not the campaigning and voting level, though the latter should not be rejected as trivial or evil.
So, as a twist on what Piercy says, there’s much room for engaging with “politics” in the form of engaging with the key ideas of political philosophies. Even from a purely political-success point of view, this is the biggest problem out there. Many involved in the Tea Parties are angry and energized against certain things, but they don’t seem to really understand why or agree on why. In the long haul, people have to understand.
Where this ties in with pastors is that they do not have to feel expert on which candidates are best or even which legislation is best. But they need to understand the principles that are pivotal in figuring out whom to vote for and what policies to back. Since these are principles about human nature, possessions, motivations, etc., they are well within the sphere of what pastors ought to informed about.
So it’s not a matter of knowing candidates super well, but of knowing principles and—for the application side—the history of social and economic ideas.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1). One matter the article does not address (though it’s only a part 1, I know) is the issue of the hunger for power. I believe the entire evangelical/conservative alliance was about secular power. When the church seeks political power, it tends to neglect spiritual power (consult world history for evidence).
2). We Christians have been used by the power-hungry. Let’s stop playing their game. They’ll say anything for our votes. Only a few would fulfill their promise. Just how much progress have we made against abortion, for instance? Did Reagan (whom I still adore) ever sign a balanced budget? Sorry guys. There are limits to what they want to do for us, and limits to what they can do for us. There are no limits to what they’ll say for our votes.
3). Some conservative values (which I share in the voting box) have little to do with Scripture. When one of the national coalitions sends “voter information sheets” to our church for distribution, they frequently include a listing of the candidates who espouse important Christian values. When they include “low taxes” as one of those values, I have to chuckle. I believe in low taxes too, but I’m pretty sure the Biblical case for them is rather sketchy. Solomon might smile.
I do not believe we have to be apolitical. I believe the amount of effort and anger in this direction has been disproportionate to the benefit. Sometimes, we have to swing the pendulum the other way for awhile and let things cool down. So as for me and my church, we’re not showing up for the picketing. Or letting the candidates speak at our church.
BTW, skjnoble, I tend to think of Jesus and His healing miracles and helping of the poor in this way: Our savior had a mission, but His compassion made Him highly “distractable”. It’s not that He sacrificed or laid aside the mission, but He would always take extra time to help people. This in turn helped His ministry, in the end. As such, I think His compassion is a good model for us, as well as His keeping the mission and the compassion somewhat compartmentalized. Of course, I have no verse to prove any of that as our Savior’s motivations. It just make sense to me.
Perhaps some who describe themselves as “apolitical” are trying to follow that principle. Those who do not speak out against abortion or gay marriage are compromising their faith. Moral issues may have become political issues, but they are first and foremost moral issues.
Another factor to consider is this: What right do we have to impose Judeo-Christian values on lost people? My answer is that as Christians we can expect the governments of the world to embrace the Covenant of Noah which was made with all mankind and which is in force as long as rainbows appear.
A lot of these other issues do have Biblical connections, but not always direct ones. Sometimes we need to consider ourselves in two ways: (1) as followers of Jesus Christ (first) and (2) as people who understand consequences and out of love for our country and mankind want what we believe is in the best interest of others. It is, I believe, in this second realm that we address issues such as free market enterprise, low taxes, military security, etc. In the first category would be abortion and gay marriage. I do not think it wise to lump it all into one package, one bundle.
One comes more directly from Scripture, the other is our attempt to extrapolate Biblical principles and Biblical wisdom. One is moral, whether political or not, and must be addressed. The other affects morals, but really is in a somewhat more subjective realm.
If people become offended over category 1, we must accept the consequences. But I do not believe it wise to offend people over category 2 issues — at least not in the context of Christian fellowship.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Mike Durning] 2). We Christians have been used by the power-hungry. Let’s stop playing their game.This generalization is so broad (as is the one before it), that I’m not really sure what to do with it. I certainly believe that wherever power is available there is going to be a % that are interested in power itself rather than interested in it’s ethical use to good and wise ends.
For a more thorough response to that, I’d point to my response to objection #4 in the article. People abuse every good thing God has given us. I think the abuse of it should make us more interested in seeing it used properly rather than less interested.
[Mike D] When the church seeks political power, it tends to neglect spiritual power (consult world history for evidence).I realize you’re pressed for time but some specific cases from “world history” would be helpful here, not only to make the point to clarify what the point is.
I’m certainly not in favor of churches/denominations etc. pursuing “political power,” (see response to objection #3 in the article) beyond the power that comes from shaping how people think. The real battle is at the ideas level and eventually what everyone believes comes out in candidates and legislation. In the short run, I’m all for minimizing damage or moving ahead through the surface stuff (particular laws, particular candidates) but in the long run, there’s no substitute for influencing how people think.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ed Vasicek] I remember Francis Schaeffer saying that Christians needed to speak where the Scriptures speak clearly, and needed to be silent where the Scriptures are silent.I agree that trying to be silent where Scripture is silent is often a major motivational factor. The aim is exactly right; it’s just that the Bible has more to say about more issues than many seem to realize.
Perhaps some who describe themselves as “apolitical” are trying to follow that principle. Those who do not speak out against abortion or gay marriage are compromising their faith. Moral issues may have become political issues, but they are first and foremost moral issues.
Take taxes for example, which I meant to say something about in my response to Mike but forgot. Of course there is no passage that says “low taxes are good.” So applying Scripture to the question is admittedly somewhat complex. But not really all that complex. What we do have in Scripture is clear teaching that the relationship between labor and benefit is supposed to be strong. This idea is behind much of what’s in Proverbs (e.g., Prov 14:23, 6:6-7, 8-9, 10-11. I’m breaking it up so it all shows in the popups) on the topic as well as 2 Thess.3:10,11 & 12.
So it goes sort of like this…
- The Bible calls us to wisdom
- The Bible indicates that it’s wise to seek a strong relationship between labor and reward/benefit
- Excessive taxation leads to an increasingly weak labor-benefit relationship.(This is especially the case when the taxation is expressly motivated by a belief in redistribution of wealth. Wealth redistribution is a direct assault on the labor-reward principle because it says to those who work less “You will gain more from other’s work” and to those who work more “You will lose more to those who work less.”)
- Therefore, the Bible does not favor excessive taxation.
So there really are biblical principles very much involved in the question. Of course some of the premises here depend on extra-biblical data about the effects of high taxation. But it really doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.[Ed]
My answer would be that in a constitutional democracy, you ultimately cannot impose anything that strong majorities disagree with (unless your judiciary or executive branches abuse their power… and even then there is likely to be a strong backlash eventually). So “imposing” anything is really not on the table. Those who believe in these principles must persuade sufficient majorities to give their ideas a try.
Another factor to consider is this: What right do we have to impose Judeo-Christian values on lost people? My answer is that as Christians we can expect the governments of the world to embrace the Covenant of Noah which was made with all mankind and which is in force as long as rainbows appear.[Ed]
I agree, sort of. Ultimately both of these categories derive from Scripture: Love God with all your heart… love your neighbor. So they are ultimately one bundle, and doing what helps people rather than hurting them in the public policy arena is just as “moral” as abortion or any other issue: just less obvious since Scripture does not speak to it as directly. (And not all moral issues are equally important either, I don’t mean to imply that.)
A lot of these other issues do have Biblical connections, but not always direct ones. Sometimes we need to consider ourselves in two ways: (1) as followers of Jesus Christ (first) and (2) as people who understand consequences and out of love for our country and mankind want what we believe is in the best interest of others. It is, I believe, in this second realm that we address issues such as free market enterprise, low taxes, military security, etc. In the first category would be abortion and gay marriage. I do not think it wise to lump it all into one package, one bundle.[ed]
For me, it’s not so simple. If I have an opportunity to bless a million people but what I’m going to do will not be understood or appreciated by any of them, should I not do it because they’ll be offended? At what point do we start being unkind to people because they will see our unkindness as kindness? It’s not a theoretical question because we’re already there. Today, if you stand up and say that kids should not be exposed to “gay culture,” blogs and pundits all over the world call you a bigot and a hater. But it is nonetheless, not in any child’s best interests to be exposed to that sort of morally corrupting influence.
If people become offended over category 1, we must accept the consequences. But I do not believe it wise to offend people over category 2 issues — at least not in the context of Christian fellowship.
So it is now a daily reality that what helps people is offensive to them.
Of course, there are still lots of things that help people that are not offensive to them. But if we say “let’s stick to those,” how far do we take that? It seems to me to be a shrinking category and, in any case, far too limiting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
And wise policy does make life better for people—usually in large numbers and often for long periods of time. Appointing rulers who are just blesses all under their rule.No one, conservative or liberal*, disagrees with this. The issue is influencing hearts to comprehend a true basis of justice. That’s what can’t be accomplished by political means.
Beyond that, Christian after Christian I’ve talked to seems to view the presidency/congress being held by a certain party or being able to maintain a certain standard of living a sign of God’s blessing on us for being righteous. Or worse, the reason we ought to try and be righteous.
Sometimes I wonder if the church in America might actually benefit from a descent into Socialism or religious intolerance.
*This word order was determined by alphabeticity and not the preferred philosophy of the poster. ;)
Joe Earle
Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative by Carl Trueman (put out by P&R Publishing)
The book is a short read (110 pages), but it packs a punch. He explains why he is unsettled about the current marriage between conservative politics en toto and American Christianity. I tend to agree with most of his points. In any case its worth evaluating and thinking through why someone would object to this.
You can http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/10/11/republocrat-confessions… read my review if your interested. You can visit the http://prpbooks.com/inventory.html?target=indiv_title&id=2065] book’s page at P&R’s website for a the book trailer and other video interviews about it. http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/7067?utm_source=bhayton…] Westminster Bookstore has the book for 5.99 right now , too.
I’ll be looking for part 2 of this series with interest.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion